Recently more publications about independent experiments
have confirmed the nuclear nature of the energy released in devices as the
reactors of Rossi [1-3]

We have investigated the possibility of collective nuclear
processes for working parameters somewhat similar to these during 2001 to 2012
with positive results. We consider that the initiation and maintaining of the
collective nuclear processes in finely dispersed condensed media can be
effectively used for increasing the efficiencies of the processes of converting
the electrical energy to thermal energy from the level of 3-4 (characteristics
for the majority actual series of heat pumps and invertors) to the level of
10-20 times and even higher.

This allows attaining of energy
self-sufficiency/independence from any external energy sources based on
concerting a part of the thermal energy in the electric energy necessary for
feeding the drivers. This is only our theoretical evaluation, however considering
the attention to the new energetics that even without a physical explanation was created by Andrea
Rossi, we think its necessary and will do all efforts for their experimental
confirmation in the nearest future.

Scientific leader of the All-Russia seminar “ Cold
Nuclear Fusion and Ball Lightnings, PhD in physical and mathematical sciences,
decent of the Chair of Theoretical Physics and Mechanics Russian University
People’s Friendship, Moscow

The presentations of A.G. Parkhomov from 25.12.2014
and 29.01.2015 9both can be found on the
site: www.lenr.seplm.ru)

Have shocked the Internet not only in Russia
but also abroad.

At the regular session of seminars from 26.02.2015 has
specially participated Bob Greenyer from G.B. the main coordinator of research
projects of the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project. The basic purpose of his visit
was to meet with A.G. Parkhomov.

Parkhomov is quiet, modest, shy, clearly not a public
person, a typical representative of the solitary talented experimenter.

Parkhomov was not waiting such an effect. In connection
with this I want to remember you an instructive story of the discovery of the
Nuclear Cold Fusion by Fleischmann and Pons to not repeat their main error-
badly reproducible results based on reliable scientific data. Now we already
know that the same authors of the discovery, a real effect, later even in much
better conditions were not always able to reproduce it.

In connection with those shown above, considering my many
years (more than 30) collaboration with Parkhomov, the redaction of this
journal has asked me opinion/attitude toward the consequences of his work.

The results obtained by Parkhomov have divided scientists
of many countries (first physicists and chemist), engineers, inventors
(sometimes lacking specific education) and also

Simply curious people- all these dedicated to new
ecologically clean energy sources- in two camps.

The optimists have received the opus of Parkhomov with genuine
enthusiasm, firstly because it was opened the “black box” of Rossi with its
“secret catalyst” (this was not found there) and it became possible to repeat
its experiment by any competent engineer and not more only by a genius having
an amazing intuition- as the unique Rossi. Even more because the properties of
powders as LiAlH4 and Ni are well studied and described in detail in the
Internet and can be bought relatively cheaply on the Internet in any quantity
and taken home. It is completely obvious that in the near future we will see
hundreds, possibly even thousands of replications of Rossi’s reactor.

As it was shown above the “effect” in different forms of
manifestation was observed experimentally in tens of laboratories of the world
(look to the site www.lenr.seplm.ru and
our paper ’Catalytically induced D-D Fusion in Ferroelectrics’ then to the sitehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroelectric_fusion)

But in the majority of cases with bad reproducibility

Therefore, according to Parkhomov the best proof of
reality of the effect will be to build a really working cheap useful device.

It seems the same opinion is held also by Rossi because
all his presentations were initiated by himself in person. Moreover he avoids
publicity and this is like he not only hides the secret of the materiel composition
but also important experimental details.

The pessimists are convinced (justified) that still does
not exist a single breakthrough.

On the entire world there is no one working laboratory
device, producing excess energy in such a quantity that is greater than the
energy used for driving it and to assure self-sustaining. To work
independently/autonomously from external energy sources. Moreover if you
consider the total energy consumed by the cell of Parkhomov from the very start
of the experiment when the cell is heated very slowly

5 hours up to 1100 C (this is necessary for the release
of the hydrogen from the LiAlH4 (LiAlH4 = Li+AL+H4) followed by its regrouping
in the crystalline lattice of nickel) and during this period it is not produced
any supplementary energy (only expenses). To this adds the energy necessary for
maintaining the high temperature of the cell and excess energy is obtained only
for short periods of time, than it is obvious that we obtain COP under 1. The
situation will be even worse if we consider the energies consumed for the
preparation of chemically active powders of nickel lithium aluminum hydride.

Thus from the point of view of a new source of energy, there
still is not anything sensational.

Fortunately, the author himself is well aware of this and
he is decided to add to the tables of 25.12.2014 and 29.01.2015 the above shown
evaluations of total energy. Of course in long term regimes of work (months and
more) of the device at temperatures around 1100 C the initial period of energy
expenses can be neglected in comparison to the productive time and the COP will
be greater than 1

It is regrettable that such long periods of functioning
cannot yet be attained due to incontrollable local overheating that lead to the
interruption of the feeding and even to the destruction of ceramic tubes.

The elimination of this disadvantage, according to
Parkhomov is difficult- there are no resources for it. It seems that the most
important problem, the stable functioning of the reactor was solved only by
Rossi and it is possible this is his basic “know-how”

I have deliberately not mentioned the attitude of the
theorists

Toward Parkhomov and Rossi and earlier Fleischmann and
Pons and their thousands of followers. Some of the theorists are already
actively implied in the discussion of the latest results. If you look a bit broader on the problems.
now there are offered too many theoretical models, that means there is no
adequate rational theory of the phenomenon (and there can be even more
different phenomena).

It were discussed the acceleration model of Tsarev,
nuclear molecules of Barabanov, the erzions of Bazhutov, the fluxes of
Rodionov, the dineutrons a relic (?) neutrino of Muromtsev, the electron-ionic nuclei of
Laptukhov, the oscillating charge of Sapogin, the hydrino of Mills, the
micro-atoms of Barut-Vigier, the light neutrino magnetic monopoles of
Lochak-Rukhadze- Urutskoev. There are also more sophisticated models of
Vysottski, Gareev, Kopysov, Ratis, Tymashev, Tsyganov, Holodov-Goryachev and
many others to whom I apologize for not mentioning them due to bad memory.

As conclusion, the author of this brief note tries to be
objective stating that to the present day there are no physically significant
reliable results in the examined domain

in of low energy nuclear reactions.

I have in mind the possibility of replication with
positive results of any experiment, in
any laboratory, in any place, at any time of the year and of the day by any independent or
critical (that is even better) group by professional experts... I consider
myself an optimist.

It is possible that Parkhomov gave those impulses that
will move this problem (LENR, CNF, CMNR) in the necessary good direction.

YU.L.Ratis, Doctor in
Physical_Mathematical Sciences, Professor Institute Of Energetics with special significance,
town Samara

The work of A.G. Parkhomov is advantageously
distinguished from all the other works on the problems of the so-called “Cold
fusion” because in it there are precisely described all the details of the
experimental set-up, the method used in the experiment and the chemical
composition of the e-cat- this being kept secretly by Rossi from all those who
wanted to replicate his reaction.

The results of this work beyond any doubt should become
public- and known not only by the scientists.

The disadvantages of the work are:

Using
as e-cat of lithium aluminum hydride, a compound that acts as catalyst of
the exotic nuclear reactions only at high temperatures

The total absence of t any attempts to
interpret theoretically the results obtained.

These drawbacks are not lowering in anyway the great
methodological value of the works as well as its role in the process of
paradigm shift in the modern nuclear physics.

1 comment:

Sigh. Nice to see that someone picked my paper out of the crowd, but I don't think I can claim to be a "physicist." I suppose worse things have been said about me.

The Russian comments are a bit disappointing. They did not critically examine Parkhomov's work, which takes a few hours, and one may need to know where to look. There is mention of theoretical objection, which is completely useless. If there is XP, so what if there is no "theoretical intepretation"? Facts first, interpretations later. If there is no XP, what's to interpret?

The interpretation of "uncontrollable local overheating" has been swallowed. The evidence does not support it.